moonbattery logo

Aug 30 2011

RINO Jon Huntsman Evokes Evolution to Push Global Warming Hoax

Good news for Al Gore — he’s not the only authoritarian liberal still asking us to drink the global warming Kool-Aid:

Global warming is associated with the theory of evolution because liberals have been able to use the latter to make conservatives look fanatical. The trick is to leave what is meant by believing in evolution undefined. Most agree that different species seem to evolve from common ancestors. On the other hand, the notion that human life in all its elaborate sophistication evolved from inanimate matter through idiot random chance in the short amount of time the earth has been in existence is the most preposterous belief I have ever heard an adult express.

Here Huntsman tries to have it both ways by dutifully referring to “God’s plan” while simultaneously sneering at those bitter clingers in Jesusland who won’t believe what they’re told.

Anyone still pushing the global warming snake oil at this point is either a cretin, a coward, a crony capitalist, or a collectivist.

If this moonbat gets more than 1% in any Republican primary, we’ll know the time has come to stop Democrats from voting in them before we end up with another John McCain on the ticket.

On a tip from Shawn.

Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someoneShare on Google+Pin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponShare on Facebook


  • TheDarkEricDraven

    Evolved from “inanimate matter”? Who has proposed that? You have no clue what evolution is!

  • http://www.henrypbabcock.com Henry

    Dork, I usually ignore your drivel, but your stupidity shines brightly on this one.

    Get some education, particularly on biopoesis, then you might gain an infinitesimal amount of respect around here.

  • KHarn

    “TheDarkEricDraven says:August 30, 2011 at 6:06 pm”

    OK, “In the begining, there was…” what? Was there some kind of “life” (Pick any interpretaion of “life” you wish) durring the creation of Earth?

    Have a little imagination, jerk.

  • Banana Split

    It’s ridiculous to suggest life could possibly have evolved by chance in the 6,500 years the universe has been in existance

    Scientists are morons.

  • geeknerd

    I’m a computer programmer, and I recognize DNA a an organic machine language; one that is quatinary rather than binary. And I praise the Programmer Who wrote such exquisite code.

    The Author of all mathematical laws could do no less. Consider Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem if you doubt that mathematics itself is the handiwork of an Intellegent Designer.

  • Aussie-John

    I fully believe that the two worst scientific hoaxes ever perpetrated are the theory of evolution, and man made global warmiing/climate change.

    Goo to you evolution is impossible by any proper scientific examination. There are NO (got that Eric?) examples of any taxalogical kind becoming another kind. There is no explanation for the incredible complexity of life apart from being created by an omnipotent Creator (who we Christians (and Jews) call our God)

    Eric, you have no idea what evolution really is, only what is being taught. Do proper research and you will see it has no evidence, it is a religious belief system so that people don’t have to believe in God.

    And as for man made climate change…!!!!!!!

  • TheDarkEricDraven

    Give it a rest, I’m a thiest and even I know evolution is more sound then that drival you just spouted. Single. Celled. Orginisms. Planted and guided by gods? Duh. But you can’t sit and around and demonize it without proof. Christ.

  • Stephan the Original

    Eric employs the typical tactic when evolutionists are asked the hard questions about their main idea behind their rejection of God. On the one hand, evolution is essential to science and nothing can ever be explained without it, but when one points out the preposterousness of many of the claims and the considerable difficulties in proving many of them, the definition suddenly gets narrowed down to a corner of biological science purely so that advocates can use the ‘you’re not an expert’ defence and shut you up for daring to raise your voice against the dominant secular religion. Dave is absolutely correct.

    The tactic is effectively changing the subject, but the fact remains – either you can explain the origin of matter, the universe, the solar system, the earth, life (yes, from inanimate matter), reproduction AND change from one species to another (via increase of information) from naturalistic causes alone, or your theory has more holes in it than swiss cheese and should be viewed with a healthy amount of skepticism.

    My main question is this – what difference does it make to you if evolution wasn’t true? So why do hang on to it with such fervour?

    The courage to question evolution is the same as the courage to speak up against the climate boondoggle. “But the science has spoken!!!!!” Yeah, yeah… Like people trying to protect their income stream has nothing to do with it…

    On Ray Comfort’s blog earlier this year, when challenged by atheists that the claim that matter was created from nothing was a lie, he simply went ahead and published 20 quotes. Even one of the atheists begrudgingly admitted “he won this round.”

    http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/2011/02/scientific-impossibility.html

    So, don’t be a fool, Eric.

    I think the main problem is that it is the evolutionists who do not understand creation, not that creationists do not understand evolution. I have read evolutionists claim that if God created everything, then televisions and computers and molecular science and medicine and etc. suddenly will stop working or being developed or other such garbage!!! Apparently they do not understand that an ordered universe that was created intelligently does not hinder true science one iota. Why would it?

    In fact, it has been reported from some parts of the biological sciences that there have been considerable numbers of studies left unpublished simply because of the overt design implications. The idea that creation hinders science is actually 100% false, in fact it can be argued that it is evolution that is the hinderance, because there are questions that cannot be asked without invoking the secular equivalent of the Salem witch trials. Some scientists have already found this out the hard way.

  • Fiberal

    …the notion that human life in all its elaborate sophistication evolved from inanimate matter through idiot random chance in the short amount of time the earth has been in existence is the most preposterous belief I have ever heard an adult express.

    Although I usually do not consider myself much of an adult, I will say that I had for a brief moment, the uneasy feeling that Blount was indirectly calling me an idiot.

    However, I’m starting to see the bright side of anti-evolutionists:

    “Get some education, particularly on biopoesis”

    “OK, “In the begining, there was…” what?”

    “It’s ridiculous to suggest life could possibly have evolved by chance in the 6,500 years the universe has been in existance” (try around 15 billion years)

    “Scientists are morons.” (okay…I know the last two are jokes)

    “Consider Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem if you doubt that mathematics itself is the handiwork of an Intellegent Designer.”
    (–I don’t know about the “Intellegent” part, but that has nothing to do with evolution. It was however, an ingenious way to stomp out Principia Mathematica. “No one will understand that you atavistic stuffed shirt”, said Fiberal’s internal editor ;)

    “There are NO (got that Eric?) examples of any taxalogical kind becoming another kind.”
    (Yeah Eric, I’ll kick yer ass…bitch)

    And so far, the winner is:

    “Do proper research and you will see it has no evidence,..” (Excellent!)

    Great stuff. Keep ‘em coming guys.

    (“Life in all its elaborate sophistication.”–priceless, Blount.)

    I really have to write a book.

  • TheDarkEricDraven

    Wait, Fib, your post confuses me. Are you anti evolutionist? Pro eveolution?

  • Fiberal

    Oh man. This one was pretty good:

    The idea that creation hinders science is actually 100% false, in fact it can be argued that it is evolution that is the hinderance, because there are questions that cannot be asked without invoking the secular equivalent of the Salem witch trials.

    Yes. And we wait with baited breath for those questions.

    Full disclosure: I have myself put to the noose a number of these heretics. Indeed, I don’t believe for a moment that evolutionary theory could have made its way without the efficient execution of a number of scientists who had otherwise held out the truth about the phoniness of Darwin and the phony baloney that On the Origin of Species really was.

  • Aussie-John

    Thank you Fiberal, it is good to know someone reads my occasional posts.

  • Fiberal

    Drivel,

    Learn how to speel.

  • Stephan the Original

    “but that has nothing to do with evolution. ”

    …and Fiberal sadly proves the point of the chameleon nature of the definition of evolution.

    Remember the creed – evolution explains everything, but do not ask questions of it, because you are too stupid to ask them.

    I think you should take a much harder look at what you are advocating, Fiberal, because it really is no different than the climate change lie.

    “The great and power OZ (evolution/climate change) has spoken”
    but
    “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!”

    But the questions are legitimate, and I will continue to ask them.

  • mega

    By combining global warming with evolution, they make global warming a theosophical debate. We should not take the bait. Whether one is a creationist/ID or an atheistic evolution theorist, global warming is a giant pile of bullshit.

    This is another version of “there were 120,000 reported incidents of Islamophobia in 2009, including physical attacks”, where one person was shoved and the other 119,999 incidents were Moslems reported feeling like someone looked at them suspiciously in a shopping mall.

    Don’t let things be combined into the Narrative that are separate. It’s a trap.

  • Fiberal

    My pleasure indeed, Aussie-John.

  • Fiberal

    “But the questions are legitimate, and I will continue to ask them.”

    –Very noble Stephan. You go, boy.

    (uh.. I really didn’t see a question there.. but okay. I get caught up in the moment sometimes, myself)

  • TheDarkEricDraven

    Oh, okay, you’re typical for the site again then. Very well.

  • Stephan the Original

    “Yes. And we wait with baited breath for those questions.”

    Ummm, maybe you should watch Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed as its main theme was not the proving of Intelligent Design, but the active squashing of even asking the questions. The topic is censorship. And like stupid lemmings, PZ Myers, Dawkins and the rest of the neo-atheists went ahead and proved the point in response to the film. And you are acting the same way.

    Fiberal, grab the DVD, go to the special features section – there are two short excerpts left out of the film that speak directly to the design paradigm and its application in real science.

    Also, you can try this interview (in two parts)
    http://www.idthefuture.com/2007/08/
    Producer Ruloff speaks directly to how evolution hinders scientific research.

    But for now, you are looking to me no different than Al Gore and his unthinking disciples. The idea is the same – you are an idiot if you even question the premise, so just shut up.

    btw, I have meant my history of asking questions – remember these ones, Fiberal, that you have avoided in the past?:
    Do you have a time machine?
    Have you ever changed in a lab one species to another?

    or perhaps you can properly read what I wrote above and answer this:
    What difference does it make to you if evolution wasn’t true? So why do hang on to it with such fervour?

    They sure look like questions to me, but of course, I am just a creationist (read: idiot) who can’t possibly match it with you.

    Please don’t be obtuse, Fiberal, I wish you could see in a mirror how belligerent (eg. “Very noble… You go, boy”) and completely unthinking your tone is.

    “Full disclosure: I have myself put to the noose a number of these heretics. Indeed, I don’t believe for a moment that evolutionary theory could have made its way without the efficient execution of a number of scientists who had otherwise held out the truth about the phoniness of Darwin and the phony baloney that On the Origin of Speciesreally was.”

    I read this 5 times and I couldn’t fully understand this. Can you please explain a little more clearly? It seems to be stating that you are happy to engage or assist in the potential destruction of careers because they held to different ideas than yourself, and you are equally as happy to broadcast this – but I could be wrong. It just doesn’t seem to be in sync with someone who wants to simultaneously paint themselves as a thinking and open-minded individual interested in the advancement of ideas. In fact, it seems to be cheerfully advocating one of the most distasteful parts of moonbatteriness.

  • Fiberal

    Ahhh…snag time:

    “Do you have a time machine?”

    “Have you ever changed in a lab one species to another?”

    Excellent…thanks Original. These go into the scrapbook.

    “Full disclosure: I have myself put to the noose a number of these heretics. Indeed, I don’t believe for a moment that evolutionary theory could have made its way without the efficient execution of a number of scientists who had otherwise held out the truth about the phoniness of Darwin and the phony baloney that ‘On the Origin of Species’ really was.”

    (This should have had a (sarc) after it. Sorry, I tend to get, let’s see: obtuse, belligerent and unthinking.)

  • Stephan the Original

    “These go into the scrapbook.”

    It seems perhaps I should keep one too.

  • Fiberal

    I would if I were you.

    You have some great quotes on evolution, man.

  • Stephan the Original

    It seems you continue to prove my point. But pardon me for interrupting you. Carry on.

  • Beef

    I think Huntsman is running to be Obama’s VP.

  • TheDarkEricDraven

    I regret getting involved in this thread. You guys are good enough at making asses of each other yourselves.

  • Stephan the Original

    “I regret getting involved in this thread.”

    Take that thought into every other thread before you post and run with it, Eric.

    One day, you will grow up, I can only hope.

  • SPURWING PLOVER

    Just as bad as that cracked urn CARL SAGAN claiming were all STAR STUFF he was also a evolutionary cracked urn

  • mccarl

    You can turn on any cable news network and they’ll poll people with the same questions. “Is global warning real?” or “is evolution still a theory”. And everytime you see the the same results, random percent yes, random percent no. People are just dying to tell their opinions when in truth they don’t matter. The only logical answer to either question is “I don’t know”. I have no clue and anyone who says they do is full of shit and probably trying to screw someone somewhere out of a good time.

  • gsw

    “On the other hand, the notion that human life in all its elaborate sophistication evolved from inanimate matter through idiot random chance in the short amount of time the earth has been in existence is the most preposterous belief I have ever heard an adult express.”

    You are so right, it is ridiculous, and we are all thankful that that is not at all what is claimed by the theory that explains how evolution works.

    As to believing in evolution, no faith necessary. Of course many claim that the theory is faulty, but the theory of gravity took a while to perfect too.

  • Fiberal

    “I have no clue and anyone who says they do is full of shit and probably trying to screw someone somewhere out of a good time.”

    It is well documented that Darwin was always a wet blanket at parties; what with him running from one person to the next trying to screw them.

    You know, I’m disappointed in this group. I thought there would be a lot more vituperation launched on this topic.

    Maybe this is how we need to keep conservatives from talking about evolution; just mix the topic up with a little global warming pseudoscience and the result becomes too odious for conservatives to tackle.

  • Fiberal

    “.. the notion that human life …evolved from inanimate matter through .. random chance in the short amount of time the earth has been in existence ..”

    gsw,

    I’ve heard this argument in various forms.

    Essentially, the argument makes the untenable bet that over approximately a billion years in which RNA was around, there would never be a chance that a purine would bond to a pyrimidine, or that a pyrimidine would bond to a purine.

    If such a reaction occurred between these nucleotides (as it does so readily in vitro and in all cells) then you’ve got the makings of DNA.

    Once you’ve got DNA, all bets are off bc then you have the substrate for life.

    The “inanimate material” argument presents a bad wager, but its made in total disregard of the potential for fundamental biochemical reactions, the spontaneity of polymer formation and the fact that the half-life of the DNA phosphodiester backbone is around 8 million years.

  • ThatDorkEricDraven

    My brain hurts!

    Cut it out, guys!

  • Winston Smith

    Seems as if most think there are only 2 options, a 6500 or so year old Earth created in 7 current days by an entity called God and billions of years of absolutely random occurances creating every form of life we see today. There is a vast middle ground that is completely ignored. The truth more than likely lies in between the 2 polarized views. Earth life could have been millions or billions of years of experimentation by intelligent beings who not only designed and created life as we know it but created our universe within their own. Ive even heard some physicists say that theoretically we may one day be able to do the same by creating a new universe within out own. This is currently beyond our level of technology of course. Even attempting such a thing carries huge risks of damaging or destroying our own universe.

    Things such as a circulatory system requires a heart, lungs, blood, various other organs, vessels and arteries to carry nutrients to cells and waste away as well as oxygen in and CO2 out. If any part of such as system is absent the whole organism fails to function caused me to change my views long ago that there has to be some higher intelligence at work on this planet as if it were a laboratory. Slow changes and conveniently random mutations would not produce such a system. Micro evolution within a species occurs by one species tranforming into something completely different has never been observed. Therein lies the problem, almost everything about the distant past is speculation that cannot be proven. Unless there is a superior intelligence that makes itself known to us in an irrefutable way. If no such higher intelligence exists then the origin and development of life on Earth will be forever speculation.

  • gsw

    @Fiberal:
    so we are in agreement that all those who say evolution is impossible do not actually understand evolution and think it works something like a roulette table?
    Also that they are unable to differentiate between a theory developed to explain a process and the process itself?

  • RICH

    I’m still waiting for a moth to evolve into something other than a moth. Surely there’s a published laboratory experiment, with positive mutation results, somewhere (ie: proof)?

    Species adaptation and natural selection are 2 things, but evolution, in a sense where the parents of a MUTANT are more handicapped than the mutant itself, defies nature, when considering that mutation destroys genetic information.

    But then again… Al Gore gave us Manbearpig.

    I stand corrected. :)

    Kudos to Hollyweird for helping people think that X-men and The Day After Tomorrow are really possible… when in fact… it’s just really bad science.

  • TonyD95B

    RE: gsw at August 31, 2011 at 4:14 am

    “As to believing in evolution, no faith necessary. Of course many claim that the theory is faulty, but the theory of gravity took a while to perfect too.”

    Gravity can be measured, observed and reproduced experimentally.

    On the other hand, we have no evidence at all to support the theory of evolution, and in fact there is an undeniable LACK of evidence to support it.

  • GoY

    Actually, no one really knows how gravity works. Its properties have been observed and measured, but when it comes to describing the actual mechanism that results in objects being drawn to each other or space-time being curved, no one knows exactly how that works.

  • StanInTexas

    That is correct, GoY. We do not know WHY or all of the mechinisms of gravity, but there is no doubt that gravity exists. It is observable. This is unlike evolution, where the theory is its very existance.

  • Fiberal

    “Micro evolution within a species occurs by one species tranforming into something completely different has never been observed.”

    This is the one “gotcha” comment that Richard Dawkins loves to pounce on as being “spectacularly stupid”. (His words, not mine – but then he’s out there in the weeds).

    Being more charitable, I will just say that in order for this to be a valid criticism of natural selection, we would not just have to look, but we would have to be able to look.

  • Fiberal

    gsw says:

    so we are in agreement that all those who say evolution is impossible do not actually understand evolution and think it works something like a roulette table?

    Not quite. I think there are some who understand evolution perfectly well, but are out to discredit the theory bc they somehow believe it undermines their religion or threatens the powerbase they have built from their religion. This is especially evident with muslim creationists.

    The “random chance” argument conveniently disregards the gradual and continual processes of adaptive change over time, the environmental variables that drive speciation and the evidence of refinement that produces elaboration in higher to lower species (eg, procaryotes to eucaryotes). This “random chance” argument so completely ignores the principles of genetic variation that it is not even worth trying to engage your protagonist on that score.


    Also that they are unable to differentiate between a theory developed to explain a process and the process itself?

    If I had to put a number on it, I would say that probably not more than 1% of the anti-evolutionist public could tell you what a theory is, and then that 1% would get it wrong.

    What is missing in creationism is a “process”. Here, no “process” is proposed; all that is offered is a worthless attempt to laugh at the evolutionary process.

    Anti-evolutionists are a lot like teen-agers (e.g., read through the comments above). Always confident; always wrong.

  • TrickleUpPolitics

    I’m still waiting for a moth to evolve into something other than a moth. Surely there’s a published laboratory experiment, with positive mutation results, somewhere (ie: proof)? posted by Rich @6:10am

    The idiot I work with was surprised that there are no snakes in Hawaii. He wondered why no sea animals had evolved into a snake and crawled onto the island. He was completely serious. I pointed out that the fact that this HAD NOT occurred did not affect his unshakeable belief in evolution.

  • Fred C. Dobbs

    Stephan the Original says:
    August 30, 2011 at 7:50 pm

    I’m glad you mentioned Expelled. That was a great movie, and a perfect demonstration of what happens to legitimate scientists when they dare question the dogma of evolution, even if it’s just by suggesting that perhaps there should be a discussion. It also makes some excellent points as to why evolution SHOULD be questioned. For example, scientists supposedly know how life came about in the primordial soup, but despite having all the building blocks they claim are needed they have yet to create a single celled organism from scratch in a lab. It’s amazing to me that even Darwin considered evolution to be a theory and nothing more, yet supposed scientific minds cling to it as bad as the worst of religious fanatics.

    The thing that always blows my mind is when all these morons trying to sell us on the global warming hoax start going on about concensus. Um…. science has nothing to do with concensus. Just ask Galileo. He was the only scientist of his time that didn’t espouse the geo-centric model of the universe because he was able to prove it wrong, yet he was ridiculed, tortured and imprisoned because he dared go against the concensus. Turns out he was right of course. Science is about what you can PROVE, not what you want to be true and the fact is that both global warming and evolution are completely unproven except on the very shakiest of scientific grounds, especially global warming. It’s been proven to be a hoax yet these morons still try and get us to believe it.

    As for Huntsman… I really don’t understand why he’s in this race. He has about us much chance of winning it as he does of flapping his arms and flying to the moon. What is he hoping he can accomplish here?

  • Fiberal

    These are priceless.

    but evolution, in a sense where the parents of a MUTANT are more handicapped than the mutant itself, defies nature, when considering that mutation destroys genetic information.

    Okay. Let me see if I have this: The mutation destroys genetic information….this seems to suggest that, somehow…a mutation will prevent…or a gene will not function.. Oh hell…I give up on this one.

    On the other hand, we have no evidence at all to support the theory of evolution, and in fact there is an undeniable LACK of evidence to support it.

    This one really wins the thread. I think this is the best blanket statement of complete abject, total ignorance ever posted on the subject yet. Congratulations!

    “This (gravity) is unlike evolution, where the theory is its very existance.”

    For some reason, I like this statement. “The theory is its very existence.” Yep. That definitely has something haiku about it.

  • Graycat

    What a fraud! Hey, Huntsman, go back to China. You would be doing yourself a big favor.

  • Fiberal

    “The idiot I work with …”

    BTW I work alone.

    … flapping his arms and flying to the moon.

    Hey. That’s got a copywrite

    For example, scientists supposedly know how life came about in the primordial soup, but despite having all the building blocks they claim are needed they have yet to create a single celled organism from scratch in a lab.

    Negation gets you nowhere. That’s the problem with creationism and anti-evolutionary poppycock.

    Look. I have made the offer to you guys and it still stands. Go out and find me a human skull that can be dated back to the Paleocene. I will write up the paper and we can destroy the theory of evolution. We would win the Nobel prize for Science and Medicine. I would like nothing more. But you have to find the skull.

  • Jodie

    You can serve Satan or you can serve God, it’s your choice. If you choose to believe in Darwinism, you are serving Satan and you are calling God a liar!

    “I am so tired of people spiritualizing the Bible, arguing that it doesn’t mean what it says, but that it means instead what they say.

    W. A. Criswell (1909-2002), the pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas for over 50 years (1944-1995), once referred to spiritualizers as purveyors of “Leopard Theology.” As he explained it, “They believe the Bible is inspired only in spots and that they have the ability to spot those spots.”

    As I point out in the lead article in this issue, the spiritualizers have had the most fun playing around with the beginning and the ending of the Bible — with the story of Creation and with the prophecies concerning the Second Coming.

    Christian leaders need to stop this nonsense. God wants to communicate with us. He knows how to do so, and He has done so in His Word. Spiritualizers need to stop trying to explain to us what God really meant to say!

    The Bible claims repeatedly to be the Word of God (1 Samuel 9:27 and Hebrews 4:12). That means it is totally truthful and reliable because God cannot lie (Numbers 23:19 and Titus 1:2). I urge you to accept what it says for its plain sense meaning, even when you do not understand it. After all, we are called to live by faith (Habakkuk 2:4, Romans 1:17, and Hebrews 10:38).”

    http://www.lamblion.com/xfiles/publications/magazines/Lamplighter_SepOct11_Beg-End.pdf

  • Fiberal

    After all, we are called to live by faith

    And if you’re happy with that, then don’t get involved in discussions outside of religion.

  • gotgot

    So Winston…what you are missing is if you do not believe the earth is 6-7k years old, and created by God in 6 days, you are damned to an eternity of punishment, excruciating pain and agony, neverending. There is no middle ground – Either you believe in the word of God as written in the Bible, or you do not. Searching for “middle ground” makes you just another evolutionist and non-Christian. I am sorry to put it in such black and white terms, but read the Bible.

    You have to accept the fact that when Science tells you about a city 8000 years ago or a culture 10000 years ago, or a volcano that erupted 14000 years ago – these are all from physical evidence from this earth, which is the plane of Satan. He has been given this earth and all the lies that can be cooked up from it.

  • Jodie

    Look at the big picture Fiberal. Most of the time, you seem nice and funny, but when it comes to evolution, you turn into a troll-like creature. You unleash the personal attacks, ridicule, mocking, and name calling.

    You can’t see that there is a reason why you agree with conservatives on almost every other subject. Many of us believe that the Bible is the word of God. You have made it clear that you don’t believe that.

    Come on! A little common sense please! Your stubbornness is going to lead you straight to Maxine Waters’ place.

  • son of a preacher man

    “what you are missing is if you do not believe the earth is 6-7k years old, and created by God in 6 days, you are damned to an eternity of punishment, excruciating pain and agony, neverending. ”

    I seemed to have missed that passage of scripture. Where is that again?

  • Fiberal

    Jodie,

    You are pushing me to unleash a personal attack, ridicule, mock or a name call…be careful…

  • Jodie

    Fiberal,

    That’s the point – you do that every time this subject comes up. Nothing new.

  • Fiberal

    Thee Without Sin,

    That’s right…go ahead. Cast the first stone.

  • mccarl

    If scientist weren’t trying to discover the origins of life then what’s the purpose of science at all. Obviously evolution is the best theory so far in determining how humans came in to existence. What would you have them study instead? I think there’s also a huge misconception about evolution – evolution makes no attempt to explain how life came into existence it merely tries to theorized it’s development over time.

  • Jodie

    Fib,

    You will find no examples of me attacking any posters on this site. I have on a couple of occasions defended myself, but only after erroneously being called a liar or being accused of using scripture to further a false premise.

  • FreedomFox

    Fiberal, you seem to be rather deliberately ignoring the point of the original post: leftists, and yourself, attempt to argue two definitions of “evolution” simultaneously. One goes no further than natural selection, and is generally accepted even by proponents of Intelligent Design. The other claims to be the explanation for life, the universe, and everything, and is absolutely preposterous. Whenever we reject the latter, you scoff and sneer, claiming that we’ve rejected the former.

    As far as your RNA world hypothesis, the probability of such a massive volume of RNA synthesizing outside a cell is astronomical, since I’m sure you realize that such a situation would require a saturated environment in order to occur. Thousands of base pairs would be one heck of a lucky streak, and even a few hundred of them lined up in exactly the correct sequence to be capable of replication (bearing in mind that an incomplete strand will not wait billions of years to be finished, but will instead decay and force you to start all over) is nearly impossible without a template. The shortest RNA molecule capable of self-replication that I’ve heard of is 165 bases long, and most RNA molecules do not possess that capability at all. I would not place my money on it spontaneously synthesizing even in a hundred billion years.

    To further assume that replication is the only criteria required to accumulate new information and undergo vast structural and functional changes is on par with assuming that a fork bomb would achieve sentience if allowed to run on a sufficiently powerful computer.

  • mccarl

    Skepticism is a religion all it own. I’ve always believed science in the search of truth and not profit ultimately wields extraordinary results. I see no reason to believe that evolutions confirmation would produce any financial gain. On the other hands I know religion is a very lucrative business and such a discovery outside the realm of theism would be bad for business. I’m an atheist, I’m sure that’s apparent by now, however I do not believe religion was originally intended to become as financially successful as it is today, I’m sure it’s creation was also rooted in the search for the truth in the beginning.

  • Fiberal

    Fox,

    For cryin out loud Fox, Its exactly the opposite: Anti-evolutionist Creationist Intelligent Designers (ACID-heads) for the most part ignore the evidence of natural selection and the gradual changes produced by mutations by lurching directly into first origin arguments.

    ACID-heads bring in everything but biology; from God to the Big Bang to random chance to Goedel’s Incompleteness Theorem to time travel to the destruction of the known Universe.

    This then serves as a way to avoid discussion of the specifics that support the evolutionary basis for the life sciences, esp biology, about which the ACID-heads have no viable critique or substitution or explanation (e.g., the fusion of human Chromosome 2 showing submetacentric centromeres that have sequence homology to apes-you find this in every single human being alive or has ever lived – I can go on all day here, Dude).

    Then once the ACID-heads are safely ensconced into their creation-origin scheme of choice, they claim SPECULATION, “scientists are morons” and they can dispense with further argument. Therefore they win.

    You have it completely backwards.

    You are also willfully missing the point over and over — that there are in fact two separate disciplines here: one is evolutionary science which tries to construct a cohesive foundation for the change observed in natural systems and the other is the science of origins – which happens to be an integrative and somewhat peripheral branch of investigation, and is a subcategory of evolutionary theory the data of which has no impact on the theory.

    I would say learn the theory but you and the ACID-heads argue where you’re comfortable. You neither know or are interested in the science of evolution and are proud of it.

    This is a huge, major dent in the intellectual integrity of conservativism. And its going to help re-elect that f’n Kenyan to the WH.

    And let’s face it; you guys are not the least bit interested whatsoever in the investigation of evolutionary principles or ideas.

    You’re interested in being right. At all costs. You’re interested in being comfortable. And you’re all intellectually disingenuous.

    Just like the liberals we despise.

  • Fiberal

    Put it this way Fox: if God did not want evolution, he would not have created phosphodiester bonds.

  • Banana Split

    Genesis is crystal clear on the subject. FreedomFox has walked down the road to damnation by taking man’s fallible word over God’s infallible word. Just because he doesn’t go all the way and become an atheist evilutionist isn’t going to save him when he faces his Creator. Atheist evilutionists think they can persuade with facts and logic but true believers are safe from Satan’s lures.

    Reason is the Devil’s greatest whore – Martin Luther

  • FreedomFox

    “Evolutionary basis”
    If you’re trying to start with Evolution and derive biology from that, you’re doing it wrong. The basis of biology is Chemistry, not Evolution. Evolution attempts to build from Biology, so it would be more accurate to say that you have a “biological basis for evolution” rather than the other way around. How successful it is at doing so, of course, depends heavily on your definition of “evolution”.

    If, as you seem to believe, we are merely apes with an autosomal disorder, isn’t it remarkable that we seem to contradict everything that is generally expected from such disorders? Not only did we apparently get much smarter rather than becoming mentally handicapped, we got legs that were better suited to walking, better fine motor control, and bred true to boot. Considering that, as far as I know, we are sterile in relation to any known ape (meaning that we cannot interbreed) this suggests that at minimum two “people” (for lack of a better term) of opposite genders would have had to have the same defect at the same time, find each other, and have kids. Interestingly, I don’t see people with Down Syndrome going off and becoming their own species.

    The reason I do not argue the merits of natural selection is that I do not dispute the process of natural selection. What I dispute is zealots trying to turn it into an Atheist origin story and vastly overestimating its capabilities.

    As an analogy, I am aware of how a siphon works and do not dispute the process of siphoning at all. But if you tell me that you can get infinite energy by siphoning a reservoir into itself I will disagree with you in no uncertain terms.

  • TheDarkEricDraven

    Yes, Banana. Making a girl out of man’s rib is so much more plausible. Thats what gets me, really. Evolution? “No evidence, like for realz guys!”
    Talking snake? “Yeah, I can believe that.”

  • RICH

    Let’s put the science to the test, shall we?

    How did man become a hairless animal?

    Don’t give me this is another ‘gotcha’ question either.

    If you seriously want to play this game, I’ll test you.

  • son of a preacher man

    Again I ask. Where in the bible does it say someone is destined to eternal damnation b/c they do not take the Genisis account literally.

  • Spock

    Huntsman is a Lib plant!!!

    First we all know Global Warming is a Hoax, becasue all these fanatics like Obama all seem to think oil and Factiories in the US cause global warming.

    Lets see not a word about China who now has more factories then us spewing CO2, Obama gave 1 BILLION of our tax dollars to Brazil company owned by Soros to drill in the Gulf.

    This is a way they are trying to destroy the US.

    Notice ask a lib what fuel we are suppose to use, when they get off their Gulf stream they will say electric, solar, wind – ok then ask them lets put the windmills in the best place according to the coast guard by Marthas vineyard — oh no no we cant mess up the kennedy’s view, ok lets put them off the coast of San francisco, nope can’t block the view of lib elits. Ok then lets build Nuclear to charage all the electric cars. oh no we cant do that.

    What should we do? they will answer the same? If we had the technology don’t you think it would be out there.

    I know they pass the lies that the oil companies bought the rights to everything, then pass a law that puts a time limit on pattons. nope cant do that

    What should we do Lib? They answer your a racist!!!

  • Fiberal

    RICH says:
    How did man become a hairless animal?

    Man is not a hairless animal.

  • Fiberal

    BTW as you guys go along picking and choosing the science you like, you may want to look at this:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/08/31/has-the-agw-argument-imploded/

    Given the hysteria around evolutionary theory, I do not think the right will have much credibility in arguing against global warming —even with these results.

    The demise of AGW is best left to the scientists.

    As is evolutionary theory.

  • Sinister66

    Jodie
    you dont have to be christian to be a conservative.
    You dont have to believe every christian belief to be a conservative.

  • Sinister66

    Fiberal
    They are discussing that on the radio now.

  • Fiberal

    Alright. Well, if all the entries are now in, let’s choose the winning comment! First place gets the “Gotcha” Award.

    Please choose the best entry, post, and no fair choosing your own post.

    Here are the entries:

    (1) Scientists are morons.

    (2) Do proper research and you will see it has no evidence

    (3) We have no evidence at all to support the theory of evolution, and in fact there is an undeniable LACK of evidence to support it.

    (4) I’m still waiting for a moth to evolve into something other than a moth.

    (5) This (gravity) is unlike evolution, where the theory is its very existance.

    (6) My brain hurts!

  • Stephan the Original

    “if God did not want evolution, he would not have created phosphodiester bonds.”

    Because Dr. Fiberal Frankenstein has created life, after all…
    What arrogance coming from someone who hasn’t even synthesised a twig! What do you know of how to build life? Do you ANY idea how you sound?

    “Its exactly the opposite: Anti-evolutionist Creationist Intelligent Designers (ACID-heads) for the most part ignore the evidence of natural selection and the gradual changes produced by mutations by lurching directly into first origin arguments.”

    (Fiberal has the whole point of the thread spelled out to him, yet still wants to argue. btw, ‘ACID-heads’ – charming.)

    “This then serves as a way to avoid discussion of the specifics that support the evolutionary basis for the life sciences”

    Actually, this is true, it’s just that Fiberal doesn’t GET it that this is perfectly legitimate. If the foundation of what he is arguing about is removed, the ‘evidence’ he presents doesn’t matter one iota. The idea of evolution is bunk. Chromosome 2 notwithstanding (which, btw, I still don’t understand how this supposedly undermines creation.) Fiberal consistently wants us to forget about the foundation of the building and instead make statements about the choice of floor in the upstairs hallway instead. He doesn’t seem to notice we are attacking the philosophical assumptions of naturalism (ie. the building will not stand) so of course discussion of the details becomes irrelevant. Naturalism underpins everything in evolution and if that can be shown to be invalid, then continuing to talk about the stuff he is simply putting the cart before the horse. He needs to own up to his own assumptions.

    “You are also willfully missing the point over and over — that there are in fact two separate disciplines here: ….”

    …and this is the crux – Fiberal simply fails to understand that naturalism underpins everything and if that can be shown to be invalid, then he is a canoe without a paddle. If chemical evolution cannot happen, then biological evolution never happened, since the former supposedly came first. Creationists will naturally attack the theory at its weakest point – so what?

    btw, Fiberal, I find it fascinating that your challenges are legitimate, but mine aren’t? (OK, the time machine is a bit outlandish, but the lab synthesis isn’t) If you really want to make your claims plausible, they need to be replicated at the very least and shown to be significant enough to change one species into another. After all, if nature can supposedly do it all without our help, it shouldn’t be an issue for smart human beings such as yourself. The ball’s in your court – you can either continue to argue with just mocking words or give concrete examples that what you are claiming really matters. Or you can actually do the smart thing and be quiet.

  • Fiberal

    Stephen,

    A little background here: I have been posting on evolutionary theory and the lack of wisdom that it takes for conservatives to be arguing against it in public for lo, about a year.

    During this time I have tried to provide sound information based strictly on known data.

    Recently a poster asked for data based on a very specific set of experimental design criteria (it was in fact, meant as a “gotcha”) for which I provided very exact and specific information that fit his requirements exactly. No easy task.

    No response; no comment; no consideration of the data.

    Just hit and run.

    And that is about all you guys do. Like liberals.

    You rant and rave on creation with no coherency or substance assuming that a sentence or a roughly hacked-up thought will bring down centuries of work, logic, theory and order constructed by numerous scientists, philosophers and technicians.

    The flap against evolution is world-wide but especially acute among muslims and ACID-head conservatives.

    And it has done irreparable damage to conservative causes.

    So the only sensible thing to do is to try and answer specific questions about evolution while making my larger point that ACID-heads need to keep their mouths shut about this great topic until they educate themselves.

    But as I said above, you guys are not looking for anything but self-confirmation that you are right, correct and immanently wise, regardless.

    By the way, you haven’t voted in my “Gotcha” contest.

  • RICH

    That’s good Fiberal, now say it again.

    “Man is not a hairless animal.”

    Good. Now we’re making progress. As far as the “Gotcha” Award, I am going to have to choose mine, even though it’s somehow “no fair” according to you.

    In all seriousness, if animals can sense oncoming danger (ie: earthquakes), how come we can’t? Did we lose that potentially life saving trait through mutation, and if so, wouldn’t that be a form of devolution?

  • Fred C. Dobbs

    To put it simply, there is no way science can disprove the existance of God. God’s method of creating life is unknown to us at this time. Is evolution a part of that plan, or are we only glimpsing a small part of it and thinking we know it all? I’d say possibly for the former and no doubt on the latter. God is a God of laws. That includes the laws of physics. He created those laws and he will not break them. It always makes me laugh when people point at things like those “Science of the Bible” shows on Discovery that try and explain how different miracles in the bible could have been accomplished and act like that somehow shows that they weren’t miracles, but were just coincidences. Take the parting of the Red Sea. Science has shown how this could’ve occured under the right conditions. So, do you think God doesn’t know that? Do you think it’s a coincidence that Moses just happened to be in the right place at the right time?

    Rather then let science show me God doesn’t exist, in reality all that it does is reinforce to me the fact that He does. Do you really think man can ever discover something God doesn’t already know? If they could he wouldn’t be much of a God would he? I’m Mormon and one of our key beliefs is that “the glory of God is intelligence, that is, light and truth.”

  • gorgo

    son of a preacher man says:
    August 31, 2011 at 11:22 am

    Again I ask. Where in the bible does it say someone is destined to eternal damnation b/c they do not take the Genisis account literally.

    * * *

    It doesn’t, exactly. I think the idea (which if you’re actually any kind of preacher’s son you’ll know this already) if one does not believe the Genesis account, one probably won’t have reason to believe anything else that followed it, including the salvation message of Christ. That is, if He got that part wrong by taking Moses seriously, why believe anything else He said, including what He said about Himself?

    That’s just a guess, though.

  • Sinister66

    Fred C. Dobbs
    Oh crap, your a mormon.
    Go search through some of the previous threads until you get to one about somebody saying mormons are in league with the devil, or some such nonsence, and check the responce from the people here. Your faith is considered Satanic here.

  • Fiberal

    Let’s stay with this for a moment:

    “Man is not a hairless animal.”

    bc it kind of goes with –

    “if animals can sense oncoming danger (ie: earthquakes), how come we can’t?”

    These are very general, but fair questions so I’ll answer with a reasonable generality.

    Obviously, the chief differences between man and animals have been due to different environment pressures and ecological niches the different species adapted to.

    And it usually is the case that there have been many branches of ancestral species that have made a variety of adaptations, some of which led to new habitats, physiological requirements, changes in appearance and on occasion, a new species.

    There are of course myriad differences between any given species of animal and man but that said, its only when you start to look at the cellular chemistry and its machinery do you realize that most differences are due to how that machinery is put together. As you look deeper, you find that there is surprisingly little variance between genomes and that some differences are more in the expression of common genes.

    We’re less hairless than some mammals (apes) and more so than others (naked mole rat). On the other hand, (due I supposed to living in shelters, close quarters, clothing and social dependency), man has lost acuity in most of his senses, save vision perhaps, relative to some animals.

    I should say, “don’t use” as opposed to “lost”.

    In any event, these differences represent modifications between organisms due to their respective evolutionary histories. What may have been adaptive before may not remain adaptive or useful and so traits can change.

    That is the crux of evolutionary theory.

    For example, there is a fish (don’t ask, I don’t remember offhand) that underwent a change in its intestinal system within two generations after migrating to a different body of water with a different food supply and temperatures. That change would be over 1 – 2 years.

    So you might imagine the number and intricacy of changes that could take place over millions of years in a species.

    I think that the ability of animals to sense earthquakes has to do with the tremendous encoding capacity of their nervous systems that they use to negotiate their surroundings; either to avoid predators or to predate.

    Which is to say, a capacity of sensitivity that we brutally and unjustly ignore when we kill them for fun and profit.

  • Proud Kuffar

    I feel for you Fiberal. Some people here feel evolutionary science is inherently hostile to their basic religious and/or political ideology so that they refuse to even consider the overwhelming evidence. Thankfully most logical people who are involved in some science-oriented field do not hold the same view or we would be back in the medieval ages just like the barbarians in the Middle East.

  • Fiberal

    Thanks Kuf,

    But I think they could at least have been polite enough to vote in my “Gotcha” contest.

  • Proud Kuffar

    Churchill on Islam:


    No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”

    Scientific inquiry led to the rise of Western civilization and stemmed the rise of the violent death cult. Without the strong arms of science, we are nothing. Faith alone does not cut it. Ask the Muslims how that is working for them.

  • Fiberal

    Good point Kuf, good point.

  • Stephan the Original

    “You rant and rave on creation with no coherency or substance assuming that a sentence or a roughly hacked-up thought will bring down centuries of work, logic, theory and order constructed by numerous scientists, philosophers and technicians.”

    I’m extremely coherent since I can discuss your issues and match it with you but the preference to “hit and run” is a typical evolutionist tactic, not the other side. I’ve lost count of the amount of times they have been challenged to debates yet refuse. And they give that fallacious “we don’t want to give them credibility” argument, which is code for ‘we don’t want to risk losing a debate’.
    And perhaps you might familiarize yourself with the concept of falsifiability since it is the nature of it that one idea can bring down years, even decades of assumptions, the very thing you seemingly think is invalid.

    If you were really so sure about evolution, then smack-down debates of creationists would be a dime a dozen. But since they evolutionists act more like the global warmists and run away, I’ll take your reply for the sneering but ultimately evidence-poor diatribe it is.

    So thanks for playing. FWIW, two of my family members were staunch evolutionists and by the time I was 20 (more than half a lifetime ago) they could not debate with me anymore, because I knew their arguments better than them and the usual guff would not work anymore. You’re no different.
    The “irreparable damage to conservative causes” comes from you, my friend, because you don’t even want to face up to what you believe, yet you try to tell me all about how bad what I believe is. Any true conservative is prepared to critically examine their own assumptions, not tell others to shut up as you are. Freedom of the exchange of ideas is encouraged, not squashed, in case you didn’t know. And right now, your penchant for a totalitarian regime in this realm of the pursuit of knowledge is at odds with what you say you are.

    And my point about the time machine has always been for you to deliver even just a modicum of circumspect and perspective to the concept of origins, but NO, FIBERAL IS RIGHT AND NO CORRESPONDENCE WILL BE ENTERED INTO. But there is none forthcoming, just adolescent raving instead. Even though no-one can actually examine what really happened, let alone synthesize even a small fraction of the scenarios claimed.

    As for your quote competition, is there anything else here that so perfectly shows just how much of a mental teenager you still are? I could do it too with your howlers, but I’m actually an adult and prefer to act like one. When you grow up, feel free to engage again.

    btw, it’s Stephan with an a. Learn to read.

  • TonyD95B

    RE: Proud Kuffar at August 31, 2011 at 6:48 pm:

    PK quotes Churchill*, “Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled……”

    Must be why many of Europe’s oldest universities and educational institutions (along with a lot of hospitals and similar institutions) were chartered and/or founded by Christians, including the much-maligned Catholic Church.

    It was the Church that protected and preserved many of the writings of antiquity, and promoted a lot of the scientific inquiry of the day, even in the so-called “Dark Ages”.

    Of course, the more irrational among us will parrot the usual anti-Christian nonsense about heliocentrism versus geocentrism……and some more bulls#it about a “Flat Earth”…..and have no idea who really said what.

    As for evolution:

    It was the monastaries that were frequently ordered to teach the people, and served similar to the university farm extension programs we have in modern times.

    With regards to “natural selection”, animal breeding and “intentional selection” was being practiced by farmers and monks a millenia or more ago, so it’s incomprehensible that anyone but a hard-core Bible literalist would not accept breeding and adaptation…….because any gardener, farmer or horse / dog breeder knows they’re fact, and they don’t conflict with Christian religious views at all.

    That’s actually one of the huge differences between Christians and Muslims: We see an orderly universe and our capacity for scientific inquiry as evidence of God’s world. The Muslims see the world and everything that happens in it as the “will” of their vengeful and hateful Allah.

    That’s why the b#stards are culturally, intellectually and spiritually stunted, and most of the Muslim world is still living in the 7th century with no indoor plumbing.

    Putting religion and anti-Christian bias aside, this brings us back to my earlier statement:

    “We have no evidence at all to support the theory of evolution, and in fact there is an undeniable LACK of evidence to support it.”

    If there were what Aussie John calls “Goo to You” evolution, where are all the parallel developments……and where are all the failures?

    Why (and how) did it happen the way it did – and where are the “earlier revisions”?

    For other scientific laws and generally accepted theories, there’s evidence. In the case of true hard-core evolution (not breeding, adaptation or random mutation), there really is very little……and I’m being polite.

    *Churchill was a great man – but he was wrong about a lot of things. A century ago Ol’ Winston helped lay the groundwork for a lot of what is wrong in the Middle East today.

  • Stephan the Original

    “or we would be back in the medieval ages just like the barbarians in the Middle East.”

    Really? I’ve always found this accusation from evolutionists terribly fascinating. How so, Proud Kuffar? Please explain.

    My understanding of how creation impacts on day-to-day living must be wrong then, because I see no negative impact to science in the belief whatsoever – in fact the assumption of the triune God of the Bible actually connects the dots on rational thought as well as morality and makes the whole function. We can rely on our thoughts having a rational basis because WE have a rational basis. We were created deliberately for a purpose. My computer still keeps working strangely enough without me being the slightest bit bothered by it.

    So, don’t run away, Kuf, please tell me how my belief in Adam and Eve (just like Jesus in Matt) stops my computer from working or any medical science, or oil exploration, or astronomy, or satellite working, or, etc. etc. etc.

    Or if you cannot, let me tell you that your accusation is just vacuous mockery. Worthless. If anything, the idea we are rational and can be purposeful creates the groundwork for scientific endeavours, not the reverse. What’s blindingly clear is that you don’t even understand what creation is, otherwise you would not make such stupid statements.

  • TonyD95B

    RE: Stephan the Original at August 31, 2011 at 9:21 pm:

    Stephan the Original: “Freedom of the exchange of ideas is encouraged, not squashed, in case you didn’t know. And right now, your penchant for a totalitarian regime in this realm of the pursuit of knowledge is at odds with what you say you are.”

    HOOAH! On target, StO.

  • Stephan the Original

    *Matt should be Matt 19 – ie. the Gospel of Matthew

  • RICH

    “What may have been adaptive before may not remain adaptive or useful and so traits can change.”

    So what you are saying is that sensing (grave) danger before it arrives is not useful.

    Lol. Do you really believe that?

  • RICH

    I love arguing with atheists. They’re the smartest people in the room, and they’ll be the first ones to tell you that.

    “The demise of AGW is best left to the scientists.”

    Do you have any idea how arrogant you are, Fibber All? Good God. To suggest that the demise of AGW could NOT be achieved without everyday normal folks (idiots) discussing, researching, arguing, and convincing others that AGW is politically motivated and purely hyperbolic bullshit, is stupid. S-T-U-P-I-D.

    I participated in a town hall meeting with then NH representative Carol Shea-Porter (D), a global warming activist. Knowing that time was short before they cut me off, I was able to make this one statement:

    Since the turn of the 20th century, it is believed that man has contributed approximately 100 ppm of CO2 into our atmosphere, but we have geological and anthropological proof that the planet has been warmer in the past. Do you have any idea how much warmth is attributed to 100 ppm CO2?

    Her first response was “Ummm… no?” She then went and blabbed on about polar bears and what not. It was priceless. She later lost the election, giving up her seat to a republican. I’d like to think that I played very small role in that, but according to you, nope.

    You’re welcome.

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy